IBJNews

Report: Simon may drop General Growth bid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Shares in General Growth Properties Inc., the second-biggest U.S. mall owner, fell as much as 6.7 percent in New York trading Monday morning after a newsletter report that Simon Property Group Inc. may abandon a takeover bid for its smaller rival.

Indianapolis-based Simon is unlikely to move ahead with its buyout offer because of antitrust concerns, the REIT Newshound reported Sunday night, citing sources it didn’t identify. Simon has concluded that an attorney for Chicago-based General Growth who handles antitrust issues wasn’t dealing in “good faith,” the newsletter said, citing one of the sources.

Simon spokesman Les Morris and General Growth spokesman David Keating didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

General Growth fell 4.1 percent to $16.05 as of 11:49 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, and sank to as low as $15.61 earlier MOnday. The shares have jumped 71 percent since Feb. 15, the day before Simon made public a $10 billion offer to buy the company out of bankruptcy. General Growth dismissed the bid as too low and instead plans to exit bankruptcy with financing from a group led by Brookfield Asset Management Inc.

“GGP shares were priced based on some sort of topping from Simon,” said Benjamin Yang, an analyst with Keefe, Bruyette & Woods in San Francisco. “Based on this news, it seems less likely that Simon will come back with an offer higher than the $15-a-share proposal from Brookfield.”

General Growth filed the biggest real estate bankruptcy in U.S. history almost a year ago after amassing $27 billion in debt making acquisitions. Simon’s bid would have given equity investors about $9 a share and paid unsecured creditors in full.

Simon has been preparing a new offer for General Growth, a person with knowledge of the plan told Bloomberg News last month.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. I am not by any means judging whether this is a good or bad project. It's pretty simple, the developers are not showing a hardship or need for this economic incentive. It is a vacant field, the easiest for development, and the developer already has the money to invest $26 million for construction. If they can afford that, they can afford to pay property taxes just like the rest of the residents do. As well, an average of $15/hour is an absolute joke in terms of economic development. Get in high paying jobs and maybe there's a different story. But that's the problem with this ask, it is speculative and users are just not known.

  2. Shouldn't this be a museum

  3. I don't have a problem with higher taxes, since it is obvious that our city is not adequately funded. And Ballard doesn't want to admit it, but he has increased taxes indirectly by 1) selling assets and spending the money, 2) letting now private entities increase user fees which were previously capped, 3) by spending reserves, and 4) by heavy dependence on TIFs. At the end, these are all indirect tax increases since someone will eventually have to pay for them. It's mathematics. You put property tax caps ("tax cut"), but you don't cut expenditures (justifiably so), so you increase taxes indirectly.

  4. Marijuana is the safest natural drug grown. Addiction is never physical. Marijuana health benefits are far more reaching then synthesized drugs. Abbott, Lilly, and the thousands of others create poisons and label them as medication. There is no current manufactured drug on the market that does not pose immediate and long term threat to the human anatomy. Certainly the potency of marijuana has increased by hybrids and growing techniques. However, Alcohol has been proven to destroy more families, relationships, cause more deaths and injuries in addition to the damage done to the body. Many confrontations such as domestic violence and other crimes can be attributed to alcohol. The criminal activities and injustices that surround marijuana exists because it is illegal in much of the world. If legalized throughout the world you would see a dramatic decrease in such activities and a savings to many countries for legal prosecutions, incarceration etc in regards to marijuana. It indeed can create wealth for the government by collecting taxes, creating jobs, etc.... I personally do not partake. I do hope it is legalized throughout the world.

  5. Build the resevoir. If built this will provide jobs and a reason to visit Anderson. The city needs to do something to differentiate itself from other cities in the area. Kudos to people with vision that are backing this project.

ADVERTISEMENT